Message-ID: <1873.991211@acnet.net> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 20:57:07 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds <mailto:dmhinds@acnet.net> Subject: Re: Let us rebuild the thrust To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Hi Hubert,Hope you don't interpret negatively my interspersed comments, one by one.
You just wrote:
... HD> Postings on this list have run somewhat out of control,
Agreed.
HD> and some list members would like to ask the list-owner to HD> intervene.
That has been done,
HD> This list however is not moderated. Same thing happened a few HD> years ago, and the list manager had to step in. At the time, the HD> manager was Vicki Tsiliopoulos, at VITA, but I have not heard from HD> her in a long time.
I did yesterday and it's still her.
HD> (Volunteers in Technical Assistance, VITA, is a well known NGO HD> based in suburban Washington DC)
Yes, They helped us out in 1992 with a water treatment project in Jalisco. They did a really great job, having intervened as per the invitation I was authorized to make as representative of the city council of the Municipal Govt. there. VITA is particularly strong in water technologies, which is why I promoted their intervention. And they didn't let us down.
HD> Anyway, I am enclosing hereafter the memo Vicki sent to the list in January HD> 1997. I found it in my personal archives. I have also the FAQ mentioned in HD> this memo. I can send a copy to any interested list member. If there are HD> many requests, I will post it on the list. It is only two and a half pages.
HD> May I make a few suggestions ?
HD> -keep cool; HD> -ignore provocative postings; HD> -filter out, in your mail software, messages from people you feel do not HD> behave properly, so you do not even have to see their posts; HD> -insults are never acceptable.
HD> This said, I will add my full signature at the bottom of this post, and HD> hope that, this time at least, nobody will attack me for being a HD> consultant : I am very proud of the work I am doing.
Rightfully so, I'm sure.
HD> I sincerely hope we will now get back to fruitful discussions about HD> technology transfer in development. Greetings, everybody!
That is very positive and I commend your for it. I support that 100%, believing as I do that the purpose of a list like this one involves the free but constructive exchange of concepts, experiences, resources and possibly even a collaboration or two, to further the development so sorely needed in so many places and above all, to identify and help provide the conditions needed to make or let that happen.
The above assumes that what happened was nothing more than a "calentamiento de ánimos", that during the normal course of events things became a little overheated, which is all very normal, and we can presume that with a little reason, tolerance and understanding, all will resume to normal. Fine. If that is the case, that is.
However, things have happened here, stranger things than I've seen before, that point to a more serious problem and I may be wrong. If I'm *not* wrong, things aren't going to be quite that easy. On the other hand, the serious problem I refer to is rather localized, involving only a couple of people who in any case may be one and the same, judging from the content, style and syntax observable. (If not, we have on list mirror images).
Some people seem to join email discussion groups the way others go to bars expressly to pick fights. If we can't agree on an etiquette - at the very *least* with regard to behavior *on list*, neither this nor any other group of the genre is going to prove viable.
Since you've already circulated what Vicki sent some time back (we'll know soon if past policies are still applicable), I'm going to reproduce a shorter commentary by Kelly Thompson that I happened to reread moments ago, and the aptness of it impressed me.
She stresses the need for an overall moral presence, an overall sense of solidarity that assures that persons who suffer needless and / or groundless attacks on list are *supported*, rather than lumped together with the perpetrators. *The group itself* can insist that certain kinds of behavior are *not* permitted on the list, which is what I was calling from from the start. From the start. (That was for added emphasis).
I was interested to learn that on quite separate threads (the other I hadn't even followed due to email overload), the same person or persons were involved in similar attacks, and attack is not a loaded word. A difference of opinion as to procedures is one thing, but the blanket and demeaning condemnation of any intervention what so ever simply contradicts the purpose of this list.
What needs to be done is one thing and who does it is another, but al fin y a cabo, in the end, the people actually involved will be the ones who decide who it is that does what. Any polemic on this list had ought to be constructive rather than tautological; promoting real and obtainable alternatives, rather than intentionally intangible rhetoric designed only to foment the state of an impasse itself. And above all, personal attacks have no place anywhere outside of a battlefield, which this list is not.
Lastly - those who failed to appreciate my dilemma in faced in repeatedly calling for going off list to no avail, who instead blamed me for responding on list to attacks made on list; should know that thsoe who expressed their disapproval off list were answered off list, and the ones who did so on list were answered on list, and that is the way it's going to be, with or without the "permission" of some of you. (BTW, others wrote off list to express support).
One more thing: Opinions expressed by people who refuse to identify just who they are or what it is they do and/or have done, carry little weight in my book, regardless of all they gobbledygook they use a camouflage for lack of content. Yes Dorothy, there is such a thing as garbage, and people whose goals are negative, who take pleasure in impeding the work done by others, rather than present an alternative.
The person in mind may be back or locked up somewhere, but either way *I'd* much rather do the job it takes to get things straight with him or her (big mystery) off list and even in person.
Robert (I'm going to fix all of it while I'm at it), overreacted to Stan after being thoroughly insulted by the other whatever it is, who deserved what he she or it got. (I didn't do it myself out of respect to the list, although I was sorely tempted).
That all she rode, except for the excerpt from Kelly's post, because what she expresses is the only future that this or any list can hope to sustain. (My answer is in there too).
KT> If we really are all "equal", we can only speak for ourselves and KT> listen for others to echo or debate our opinions.
I too believe we really are all "equal", but evidently there are others that don't share that belief.
KT> As I stated once before, I remain surprised that, up to now, no KT> one has spoken out in defense of people being attacked on the KT> listserv. This is "our" listserv and we have an ethical KT> responsibility as a group to protect participants.
Good for you, Kelly. We all need more of that, whether on or off list.
KT> If we do not, the listserv will lose credibility and people with KT> potentially valuable contributions will leave or remain silent in KT> fear of retribution.
I agree, but even if the listserv does lose credibility, people with potentially valuable contributions will find a way to move ahead and eventually, get together somewhere (virtually or otherwise). Like right now.
Douglas Hinds